>>13463663>Both are self-evident. The idea that either one signifies a perfectly discrete grouping is a leftist strawman. Everyone knows the lines are blurry.I'm not saying they have to be perfectly discrete groupings.
We define a species by forming a network of organisms. If organism A can breed with organism B. It is part of the same species. If C can breed with B. It is part of the same species. Even if A and C can't breed, since there is a link between them (B), they are part of the same species.
You really need to consider this concept.
We could have two humans produce an infertile child. That child, by the definition used for species, is incapable of breeding with anyone. Does this make that child outside that species? Is this conception of "species" correct?
There are people much smarter than you, and perhaps smarter than me, who write on this topic as well:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/accumulating-glitches/do_species_really_exist/But part of the point I was trying to make is. It is more complex than the leftards and rightards usually want to accept.
I could get into a long conversation about it, but I have a policy of not engaging at length with people until they prove they aren't midwits or morons
